1
|
Merner B, Schonfeld L, Virgona A, Lowe D, Walsh L, Wardrope C, Graham-Wisener L, Xafis V, Colombo C, Refahi N, Bryden P, Chmielewski R, Martin F, Messino NM, Mussared A, Smith L, Biggar S, Gill M, Menzies D, Gaulden CM, Earnshaw L, Arnott L, Poole N, Ryan RE, Hill S. Consumers' and health providers' views and perceptions of partnering to improve health services design, delivery and evaluation: a co-produced qualitative evidence synthesis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2023; 3:CD013274. [PMID: 36917094 PMCID: PMC10065807 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd013274.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/16/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Partnering with consumers in the planning, delivery and evaluation of health services is an essential component of person-centred care. There are many ways to partner with consumers to improve health services, including formal group partnerships (such as committees, boards or steering groups). However, consumers' and health providers' views and experiences of formal group partnerships remain unclear. In this qualitative evidence synthesis (QES), we focus specifically on formal group partnerships where health providers and consumers share decision-making about planning, delivering and/or evaluating health services. Formal group partnerships were selected because they are widely used throughout the world to improve person-centred care. For the purposes of this QES, the term 'consumer' refers to a person who is a patient, carer or community member who brings their perspective to health service partnerships. 'Health provider' refers to a person with a health policy, management, administrative or clinical role who participates in formal partnerships in an advisory or representative capacity. This QES was co-produced with a Stakeholder Panel of consumers and health providers. The QES was undertaken concurrently with a Cochrane intervention review entitled Effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership on health services planning, delivery and evaluation. OBJECTIVES 1. To synthesise the views and experiences of consumers and health providers of formal partnership approaches that aimed to improve planning, delivery or evaluation of health services. 2. To identify best practice principles for formal partnership approaches in health services by understanding consumers' and health providers' views and experiences. SEARCH METHODS We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL for studies published between January 2000 and October 2018. We also searched grey literature sources including websites of relevant research and policy organisations involved in promoting person-centred care. SELECTION CRITERIA We included qualitative studies that explored consumers' and health providers' perceptions and experiences of partnering in formal group formats to improve the planning, delivery or evaluation of health services. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Following completion of abstract and full-text screening, we used purposive sampling to select a sample of eligible studies that covered a range of pre-defined criteria, including rich data, range of countries and country income level, settings, participants, and types of partnership activities. A Framework Synthesis approach was used to synthesise the findings of the sample. We appraised the quality of each study using the CASP (Critical Appraisal Skill Program) tool. We assessed our confidence in the findings using the GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach. The Stakeholder Panel was involved in each stage of the review from development of the protocol to development of the best practice principles. MAIN RESULTS We found 182 studies that were eligible for inclusion. From this group, we selected 33 studies to include in the final synthesis. These studies came from a wide range of countries including 28 from high-income countries and five from low- or middle-income countries (LMICs). Each of the studies included the experiences and views of consumers and/or health providers of partnering in formal group formats. The results were divided into the following categories. Contextual factors influencing partnerships: government policy, policy implementation processes and funding, as well as the organisational context of the health service, could facilitate or impede partnering (moderate level of confidence). Consumer recruitment: consumer recruitment occurred in different ways and consumers managed the recruitment process in a minority of studies only (high level of confidence). Recruiting a range of consumers who were reflective of the clinic's demographic population was considered desirable, particularly by health providers (high level of confidence). Some health providers perceived that individual consumers' experiences were not generalisable to the broader population whereas consumers perceived it could be problematic to aim to represent a broad range of community views (high level of confidence). Partnership dynamics and processes: positive interpersonal dynamics between health providers and consumers facilitated partnerships (high level of confidence). However, formal meeting formats and lack of clarity about the consumer role could constrain consumers' involvement (high level of confidence). Health providers' professional status, technical knowledge and use of jargon were intimidating for some consumers (high level of confidence) and consumers could feel their experiential knowledge was not valued (moderate level of confidence). Consumers could also become frustrated when health providers dominated the meeting agenda (moderate level of confidence) and when they experienced token involvement, such as a lack of decision-making power (high level of confidence) Perceived impacts on partnership participants: partnering could affect health provider and consumer participants in both positive and negative ways (high level of confidence). Perceived impacts on health service planning, delivery and evaluation: partnering was perceived to improve the person-centredness of health service culture (high level of confidence), improve the built environment of the health service (high level of confidence), improve health service design and delivery e.g. facilitate 'out of hours' services or treatment closer to home (high level of confidence), enhance community ownership of health services, particularly in LMICs (moderate level of confidence), and improve consumer involvement in strategic decision-making, under certain conditions (moderate level of confidence). There was limited evidence suggesting partnering may improve health service evaluation (very low level of confidence). Best practice principles for formal partnering to promote person-centred care were developed from these findings. The principles were developed collaboratively with the Stakeholder Panel and included leadership and health service culture; diversity; equity; mutual respect; shared vision and regular communication; shared agendas and decision-making; influence and sustainability. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Successful formal group partnerships with consumers require health providers to continually reflect and address power imbalances that may constrain consumers' participation. Such imbalances may be particularly acute in recruitment procedures, meeting structure and content and decision-making processes. Formal group partnerships were perceived to improve the physical environment of health services, the person-centredness of health service culture and health service design and delivery. Implementing the best practice principles may help to address power imbalances, strengthen formal partnering, improve the experiences of consumers and health providers and positively affect partnership outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bronwen Merner
- Centre for Health Communication and Participation, School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Australia
| | - Lina Schonfeld
- Centre for Health Communication and Participation, School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Australia
| | - Ariane Virgona
- Centre for Health Communication and Participation, School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Australia
| | - Dianne Lowe
- Centre for Health Communication and Participation, School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Australia
- Child and Family Evidence, Australian Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Louisa Walsh
- Centre for Health Communication and Participation, School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Australia
| | - Cheryl Wardrope
- Clinical Governance, Metro South Hospital and Health Service, Eight Mile Plains, Australia
| | | | - Vicki Xafis
- The Sydney Children's Hospitals Network, Sydney, Australia
| | - Cinzia Colombo
- Laboratory for medical research and consumer involvement, Department of Public Health, Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri IRCCS, Milano, Italy
| | - Nora Refahi
- Consumer Representative, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Paul Bryden
- Consumer Representative, Caboolture, Australia
| | - Renee Chmielewski
- Planning and Patient Experience, The Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, East Melbourne, Australia
| | | | | | | | - Lorraine Smith
- School of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia
| | - Susan Biggar
- Consumer Representative, Melbourne, Australia
- Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA), Melbourne, Australia
| | - Marie Gill
- Gill and Wilcox Consultancy, Melbourne, Australia
| | - David Menzies
- Chronic Disease Programs, South Eastern Melbourne Primary Health Network, Heatherton, Australia
| | - Carolyn M Gaulden
- Detroit Wayne County Authority Health Residency Program, Michigan State University, Providence Hospital, Southfield, Michigan, USA
| | | | | | - Naomi Poole
- Strategy and Innovation, Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care, Sydney, Australia
| | - Rebecca E Ryan
- Centre for Health Communication and Participation, School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Australia
| | - Sophie Hill
- Centre for Health Communication and Participation, School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
The challenges of commissioning home care for older people in England: commissioners’ perspectives. AGEING & SOCIETY 2020. [DOI: 10.1017/s0144686x20000021] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/07/2022]
Abstract
AbstractHome care for older people in England is commissioned through local authorities working predominantly with independent providers of care. Commissioners operate in a market model, planning and procuring home care services for local populations. Their role involves ‘managing’ and ‘shaping’ the market to ensure an adequate supply of care providers. Another imperative, emerging from the principles of personalisation, is the drive to achieve user outcomes rather than ‘time and task’ objectives. Little formal research has investigated the way commissioners reconcile these different requirements and organise commissioning. This study investigated commissioning approaches using qualitative telephone interviews with ten commissioners from different local authorities in England. The characteristics of commissioning were analysed thematically. Findings indicated (a) commissioning involved complex systems and processes, uniquely shaped for the local context, but frequently changed, suggesting a constant need for reframing commissioning arrangements; (b) partnerships with providers were mainly transactional, with occasional examples of collaborative models, that were considered to facilitate flexible services more appropriate for commissioning for personalised outcomes; and (c) only a small number of commissioners had attempted to reconcile the competing and incompatible goals of tightly prescribed contracting and working collaboratively with providers. A better understanding of flexible contracting arrangements and the hallmarks of a trusting collaboration is required to move beyond the procedural elements of contracting and commissioning.
Collapse
|
3
|
Gardner K, Dickinson H, Moon K. Re-orienting health systems through a commissioning approach: finding solutions for improved consumer engagement. Health Res Policy Syst 2019; 17:71. [PMID: 31331334 PMCID: PMC6647255 DOI: 10.1186/s12961-019-0471-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/04/2018] [Accepted: 06/25/2019] [Indexed: 12/03/2022] Open
Abstract
As many developed health systems grapple with the reorientation of their systems to those that are commissioning led, consumer engagement has emerged as an important theme. Despite many governments asserting the importance of consumer engagement in commissioning, an evidence base is yet to be developed to support this approach. This paper identifies the challenges and gaps in the literature relating to consumer engagement and commissioning, before setting out five potential solutions to these challenges. Ultimately, consumer engagement needs clarity of purpose and any approach should be tailored to context. Effective client involvement needs time and investment. To embark on such a process without this effort can be counterproductive.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Karen Gardner
- Public Service Research Group, University of New South Wales, PO Box 7196, Canberra, BC, 2610, Australia.
| | - Helen Dickinson
- Public Service Research Group, University of New South Wales, PO Box 7196, Canberra, BC, 2610, Australia
| | - Katie Moon
- Public Service Research Group, University of New South Wales, PO Box 7196, Canberra, BC, 2610, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Peckham S, Wilson P, Williams L, Smiddy J, Kendall S, Brooks F, Reay J, Smallwood D, Bloomfield L. Commissioning for long-term conditions: hearing the voice of and engaging users – a qualitative multiple case study. HEALTH SERVICES AND DELIVERY RESEARCH 2014. [DOI: 10.3310/hsdr02440] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/22/2022] Open
Abstract
BackgroundSome 15 million people in England have a long-term condition (LTC) but there is concern about whether or not the NHS meets their needs. To address this, consecutive governments have developed policies aimed at improving service delivery and patient and public engagement and involvement (PPEI). There has been little research that examines the impact or benefit of PPEI in commissioning. This project explored the role and impact of PPEI in commissioning for people with LTCs. The research was undertaken during a period of substantial change in the English NHS, which enabled us to observe how the NHS reforms in England impacted on approaches to PPEI.AimThe aim was to examine how commissioners enable voice and engagement of people with LTCs and identify what impact this has on the commissioning process and pattern of services. Our specific objectives were to (1) critically analyse the relationship between the public/patient voice and the impact on the commissioning process; (2) determine how changes in the commissioning process reshape local services; (3) explore whether or not any such changes in services impact on the patient experience; (4) identify if and how commissioners enable the voice and engagement of people with LTCs; and (5) identify how patient groups/patient representatives get their voice heard and what mechanisms and processes patients and the public use to make their voice heard.MethodsWe used a case study design examining the experience of PPEI in three LTC groups – diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis and neurological conditions – through three in-depth case studies. Our approach involved reviewing practice across the UK and then focusing on three geographical areas to examine practices of commissioning health care for people with LTCs, approaches to PPEI, patterns of services for people with LTCs and the activities of local patient and voluntary organisations for people with LTCs. The research had five phases and involved participatory and interactive methods of data collection and analysis.FindingsWe identified two key areas where improvements to practice in relation to PPEI can be made. The first relates to the framework or infrastructure arrangements for PPEI and how PPEI can be supported in the NHS and other organisations. To combat short-termism and the fragility of PPEI activities, sufficient resources need to be invested in developing shared understandings and sustaining relationships and infrastructures. The second area of action relates to the process for PPEI and how it should be undertaken.ConclusionAction needs to be taken by organisations at both national and local levels. PPEI is a circular process and, in itself, extremely fragile. This circular process can be ‘virtuous’– successful engagement leads to improved involvement and outcomes. However, where involvement is tokenistic or ends, patients and the public become disengaged and less involved and can be described as a ‘vicious circle’. In addition, we identified a number of key methodological issues and areas for further research that should be considered by research funders and researchers undertaking research in the area of PPEI, including a need for research on PPEI with young people.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stephen Peckham
- Centre for Health Services Studies, University of Kent, Kent, UK
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | - Patricia Wilson
- Centre for Research in Primary and Community Care, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK
| | - Lorraine Williams
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | - Jane Smiddy
- Centre for Research in Primary and Community Care, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK
| | - Sally Kendall
- Centre for Research in Primary and Community Care, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK
| | - Fiona Brooks
- Centre for Research in Primary and Community Care, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK
| | - Joanne Reay
- National Institute for Health Research Management Fellow, West Essex Primary Care Trust, Epping, UK
| | - Douglas Smallwood
- Patient and Public Engagement and Involvement Consultant, NHS East of England, UK
| | - Linda Bloomfield
- Centre for Research in Primary and Community Care, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Evans DH, Bacon RJ, Greer E, Stagg AM, Turton P. 'Calling executives and clinicians to account': user involvement in commissioning cancer services. Health Expect 2013; 18:504-15. [PMID: 23418785 DOI: 10.1111/hex.12051] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 01/21/2013] [Indexed: 11/28/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND English NHS guidance emphasizes the importance of involving users in commissioning cancer services. There has been considerable previous research on involving users in service improvement, but not on involvement in commissioning cancer services. OBJECTIVE To identify how users were involved as local cancer service commissioning projects sought to implement good practice and what has been learned. DESIGN Participatory evaluation with four qualitative case studies based on semi-structured interviews with project stakeholders, observation and documentary analysis. Users were involved in every stage from design to analysis and reporting. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS Four English cancer network user involvement in commissioning projects, with 22 stakeholders interviewed. RESULTS Thematic analysis identified nine themes: initial involvement, preparation for the role, ability to exercise voice, consistency and continuity, where decisions are made, closing the feedback loop, assessing impact, value of experience and diversity. DISCUSSION Our findings on the impact of user involvement in commissioning cancer services are consistent with other findings on user involvement in service improvement, but highlight the specific issues for involvement in commissioning. Key points include the different perspectives users and professionals may have on the impact of user involvement in commissioning, the time necessary for meaningful involvement, the importance of involving users from the beginning and the value of senior management and PPI facilitator support and training. CONCLUSIONS Users can play an important role in commissioning cancer services, but their ability to do so is contingent on resources being available to support them.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | - Pat Turton
- University of the West of England, Bristol, UK
| |
Collapse
|